Comparative Study of Different Cement-Based

Inorganic Pastes towards the Development of FRIP

Strengthening Technology
Jian-Guo Dai 1; Sarfraz Munir 2; and Zhu Ding 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati on 03/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The development of fiber-reinforced inorganic polymer (FRIP) composites for strengthening reinforced concrete (RC) structures
has become an active field of research in recent years. Compared with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) strengthening systems, a FRIP
strengthening system possesses improved fire resistance but its performance depends largely on appropriate inorganic paste selection. This
paper presents a comparative study of four typical inorganic pastes, made from the following: (1) magnesium phosphate cement (MPC),
(2) magnesium oxychloride cement (MOC), (3) geopolymer (GP) cement (i.e., alkali-activated slag cement), and (4) polymer-modified
mortar (PMM). The aim was to investigate their performance both as a matrix and bonding adhesive for FRIP strengthening systems.
The evaluated performance included the workability and mechanical properties of inorganic pastes, the bonding strength of these pastes
with both a concrete substrate and dry fiber sheets, the tensile properties of the formed FRIP composites, and the flexural strength of
FRIP-strengthened concrete beams. The microstructures of the four types of inorganic matrix and the fiber-to-matrix interface were also
examined. The MPC-based and MOC-based inorganic pastes exhibit similar structural performance as commercially available PMM and are
well-suited for the development of FRIP strengthening technology. Geopolymer seems to be the most brittle among the four studied inorganic
pastes. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000420. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Fiber-reinforced inorganic polymer (FRIP); Strengthening; Concrete structures; Magneisum phosphate cement (MPC);
Magnesium oxychloride cement (MOC); Geopolymer (GP); Polymer-modified mortar (PMM).

Introduction application of the FRP strengthening technology, particularly in

Maintaining and upgrading the safety of concrete structures is a
massive challenge worldwide and better solutions are constantly
being sought. The development of bonded fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) systems represents a major breakthrough in the strengthen-
ing of concrete structures made over the past 2 decades. The suc-
cess of FRP strengthening technology is attributable to the many
advantages arising from the high strength-to-weight ratio, excellent
corrosion resistance, and fast-curing properties of FRP composites.
However, the technology suffers from a major weakness for indoor
applications in buildings, i.e., FRP composite systems have poor
fire resistance because the organic polymers (commonly an epoxy
resin), which are used both as matrix materials and bonding adhe-
sives, quickly soften above their glass transition temperatures and
may generate toxic smoke during a fire. In addition, the durability
of the bonded FRP system in moist or dry/wet cycling environ-
ments is also a critical issue due to the moisture entrapped at
the FRP-to-concrete interface, which may weaken the adhesion
strength (e.g., Wan et al. 2006; Au and Büyüközürk 2006; Dai
et al. 2010). The previously noted weaknesses have limited the
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong, China (corresponding author).
E-mail: cejgdai@polyu.edu.hk
2
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong, China.
3
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Shenzhen Univ., Shenzhen
518060, China.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 10, 2013; approved on
July 22, 2013; published online on July 24, 2013. Discussion period open
until April 27, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Construction,
© ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/A4013011(10)/$25.00.
buildings and moist environments.
To overcome these problems, attempts have been made to re-
place the epoxy in FRP by a cement-based material, leading to
the development of two major types of fiber-reinforced inorganic
polymer (FRIP) systems for the strengthening of reinforced con-
crete (RC) structures (Munir et al. 2013), as follows: (1) dry fiber
sheets/textiles impregnated with a cementitious material (Kolsch
1998; Kurtz and Balaguru 2001; Badanoiu and Holmgren 2001;
Wiberg 2003; Toutanji et al. 2006; Banholzer et al. 2006; Brückner
et al. 2006; Papakonstantinou and Balaguru 2006; Toutanji and
Deng 2007; Triantafillou and Papanicolaou 2006; Jesse et al.
2006; Dai et al. 2009; Hashemi and Al-Mahaidi 2010, 2012; Bisby
et al. 2011; Wu et al. 2010; De Caso y Basalo et al. 2012), and
(2) FRP bars/grids coated with cement mortars (Aldea et al.
2005; Taljsten and Blanksvard 2007; Moon et al. 2007; D’Ambrisi
and Focacci 2011; Zhang et al. 2011). The second system is similar
to the traditional sectional-enlargement approach except that FRP
bars/grids are used instead of steel reinforcement (i.e., epoxy is still
involved). The second system is relatively mature despite the lack
of accurate analytical methods to account for the complex interac-
tions among concrete substrate, mortar overlay, and FRP reinforce-
ment. Many types of cement mortars are commercially available,
usually comprised of pozzolanic cement, selected silica aggregates,
water-reducing admixtures, and an adhesion promoter (Nanni
2012). However, the installation procedure for the first system re-
sembles the typical wet layup technique, which is widely used for
epoxy-based bonded FRP systems because of the excellent flexi-
bility of fiber sheets on the surface of structures. The research re-
ported in this paper compares different cement-based inorganic
matrices in searching for optimum systems of the first type men-
tioned previously, i.e., dry fiber-based systems.

© ASCE A4013011-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2014, 18(3): A4013011

 An ideal inorganic matrix material for a bonded FRIP system
requires the following features (Wiberg 2003): (1) sufficient
mechanical strength for load transfer, (2) the ability to impregnate
and create a strong bond with the fiber-reinforcing materials, (3) the
ability to bond strongly to the concrete substrate, (4) thermal and
chemical compatibility with the concrete substrate, (5) good work-
ability onsite (including good consistency and fast-curing ability),
(6) environmental acceptability, and (7) limited shrinkage. The de-
velopment of such an inorganic matrix material has been pursued
by a number of research groups around the world over the past de-
cade. Four major types of inorganic matrices have been explored
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati on 03/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
for the development of FRIP systems, as follows: (1) ordinary port-
land cement (OPC)-based matrix [i.e., usually modified by a poly-
mer and commercially available as polymer-modified mortar
(PMM)], (2) geopolymer (GP)-based matrix (which is made of al-
kali activated cement), (3) magnesium oxychloride cement (MOC)-
based matrix, and (4) magnesium phosphate cement (MPC)-based
matrix. A brief review of these four different inorganic pastes is
given next.
Polymer-modified mortar is a mixture of OPC, sand, water, and
some organic polymer (latex). An organic polymer or latex is used
to improve the cement mortar properties of adhesion, resilience,
tensile strength, impermeability, freeze/thaw resistance, chemical
resistance, and durability and to reduce drying shrinkage (Ohama
1995; Pascal et al. 2004). The hydration of cement is different in the
presence of a polymer, creating a network of materials in the
cement paste wrapping around the cement and water, rather like
a series of connected films. When the cement hydration products
are formed the polymer thin-film cover enables the water to be
stored and available for complete hydration, fills the gaps between
the cement hydration products, and subsequently improves the
bond strength between the cement hydration products and sand.
In general, PMM has a relatively low compressive strength but
bonds better with the concrete substrate (Ohama 1995). To further
improve the properties of mortar, other pozzolans such as silica
fume, fly ash (FA), and slag can be added. Slag incorporated into
cement mortar can achieve better flexural performance and com-
pressive strength, whereas addition of FA can improve workability,
benefiting impregnation of the matrix into the fiber sheets of a FRIP
system. All these additives are very fine materials and can fill the
voids between cement hydration products, resulting in increased
compaction and density. This improves bond strength and durabil-
ity, and provides environmental protection to the strengthening
system (Ohama 1995; Pascal et al. 2004; Dai et al. 2013). In the
research reported in this paper, FA, slag, and metakaoline (MK)
were incorporated into the polymer-modified mortar. The purpose
of using MK is to increase early-age strength, which is desirable in
rehabilitation applications.
Geopolymer is prepared by activating aluminosilicate powder
with alkali-based and water-based activators. The aluminosilicate
powder usually comprises MK and other waste or byproduct
materials, such as FA and furnace slag. In the research reported
in this paper, slag cement was studied. Alkali activated slag cement
paste is usually prepared from slag, water, and water glass or a con-
centrated solution of sodium hydroxide (Wang and Scrivener
1995). The main advantage of using this type of geopolymer is that
it does not require curing at higher temperatures, as is necessary for
the metakaoline of FA-based geopolymers. The slag cement shows
very high-strength properties compared to OPC. This cement re-
quires a small amount of energy to prepare and CO2 emissions dur-
ing its manufacture are about 60% less than for OPC (Duxson et al.
2007). The superior properties of slag cement (such as higher com-
pressive strength, quicker setting, superb fire resistance, and high
© ASCE A4013011-2
J. Compos. Constr., 2014, 18(3): A4013011
stability in aggressive conditions) have rendered it an alternative to
OPC in recent years.
Slag cement may induce high drying-shrinkage and high geo-
polymer-carbonation rates (Yip et al. 2005, Palacios and Puertas
2006; Bernal et al. 2011). Recently, many studies focused on im-
proving the properties of geopolymer binders by blending some
aluminosilicates along with the slag. Yip et al. (2005) and Bernal
et al. (2011) found that adding a small quantity of MK to ground
granulated blast-furnace slag results in higher mechanical strength
and durability because of improved microstructural interaction
between the calcium silicate hydrate (CSH, by slag activation)
and zeolite gel (by MK activation). However, further increase of
MK content may result in less strength, higher permeability, and
more vulnerability of the geopolymer to carbonation if there is
not enough alkalinity to dissolve the MK (Bernal et al. 2011).
Magnesium oxychloride cement, sometimes known as Sorel
cement, is a three-component cement consisting of light burnt
magnesia, magnesium chloride salt, and water. The main hydra-
tion products of MOC pastes are 5MgðOHÞ2 · MgCl2 · 8H2 O
(i.e., phase 5) and 3MgðOHÞ2 · MgCl2 · 8H2 O (i.e., phase 3) at
room temperature. At higher temperatures the more stable phases
2 and phase 9 also exist (Chau and Li 2008). These four main re-
action phases play a part in the strength development of MOC pastes.
Magnesium oxychloride cement properties (such as high-early
strength, low thermal conductivity, good tensile and compressive
strength, and good fire and abrasion resistance) are superior to those
of OPC. A large amount of FA can be added to MOC to stabilize
the MOC paste, increase flow ability, and improve bonding with the
concrete substrate. Magnesium oxychloride cement also possesses a
very attractive marble-like look, and is widely used for exterior stuc-
cos, interior plasters, rendering wall-insulation panels, and decorative
panels (Li et al. 2004; Misra and Mathur 2007). Other commercial
and industrial applications of MOC cement include industrial floor-
ing, grinding wheels, fire protection, and lightweight concrete.
Magnesium oxychloride cement paste flows very easily, bonds well
with concrete, and has acicular-shaped microstructures, rendering it
an alternative matrix and bonding adhesive for FRIP strengthening
technology (Dai et al. 2013). Moreover, the smaller pH value of the
paste, compared to that of ordinary cement, ranging from 10–11,
renders it appropriate for the placing of glass fibers in this inorganic
matrix. Deterioration of MOC pastes in water or in moist environ-
ments may be a concern because of the leaching of MgCl2 from the
binder with water. When used externally or in moist environments,
the resistance of MOC pastes to water absorption needs to be im-
proved by the addition of FA and soluble phosphate (Deng 2003).
Magnesium phosphate cement is a quick-setting, high early-
strength, green, and sustainable cement, which can be made by
mixing dead burnt magnesia with an aqueous solution of phos-
phate. It can incorporate a high quantity of industrial waste such
as FA. Traditionally MPC has been prepared by mixing dead burnt
magnesia, ammonium phosphate, and water, but because of the
ammonium gas-emission problem during setting, ammonium phos-
phate has been replaced by monopotassium dihydrogen phosphate
(Wagh and Jeong 2003). Addition of FA improves the strength of
the MPC paste, reduces material cost, and improves appearance
(Ding and Li 2005). Magnesium phosphate cement is receiving
greater attention because of its many advantages. These include
quick setting, quick strength development, good durability and
dimensional stability, good water-absorption resistance, and superb
properties when bonding to an old concrete substrate (Wagh and
Jeong 2003; Ding et al. 2011). These properties render MPC a very
attractive material for rapid repair of concrete structures, sealing
boreholes, and solidification of hazardous wastes. The acid-based
reaction between the phosphate solution and magnesia is highly
J. Compos. Constr.
 violent (Hall et al. 2001), resulting in a very fast setting of the paste. Table 1. Chemical Composition of Raw Materials
Normally, the pot life of MPC paste ranges between only 2–5 min. Chemical Dead burnt Light burnt
Retarders such as borax and boric acid need to be added to prolong components magnesia magnesia OPC MK Fly ash Slag
the pot life of MPC paste (Hall et al. 2001).
MgO 83.18 93.38 2.54 0.659 — 9.84
Among the previously noted four types of inorganic pastes, CaO 6.467 1.5 63.15 24.28 7.78 35.5
PMM has been the most widely studied (based on a literature analy- SiO2 6.42 3.42 19.61 56.73 46.12 32.3
sis) as the matrix and bonding adhesive for FRIP strengthening sys- Fe2 O3 1.278 0.313 3.32 4.113 5.61 0.427
tems (Kolsch 1998; Badanoiu and Holmgren 2001; Wiberg 2003; P2 O5 1.25 0.089 — — 1.38 —
Banholzer et al. 2006; Brückner et al. 2006; Jesse et al. 2006; Dai Al2 O3 1.19 0.85 7.33 7.29 32.7 17.1
et al. 2009; Hashemi and Al-Mahaidi 2010, 2012; Bisby et al. TiO2 — 0.027 — 1.81 1.81 0.61
2011; Wu et al. 2010; De Caso y Basalo et al. 2012). Geopolymer K2 O — 0.025 — 3.46 1.59 0.37
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati on 03/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

has also been utilized by some researchers in FRIP strengthening ZnO — 0.019 — — — —
systems (Kurtz and Balaguru 2001; Paphkonstantinou and SO3 — — — 1.32 — 2.73
Na2 O — — 2.13 — — 0.42
Balaguru 2006; Toutanji et al. 2006, Toutanji and Deng 2007).
Only a few researchers have used MPC and MOC-based pastes for Note: Chemical compositions are reported in units of weight percent. MK =
development of FRIP strengthening systems (Wang et al. 2006; metakaoline; and OPC = ordinary portland cement.
Ding et al. 2011; Zhang and Zhang 2011; Tian et al. 2012; Dai
et al. 2013). through a 600-μm sieve was used as the fine aggregate. Tap water
The matrix material in a FRIP system has the following two was the mixing water. The chemical compositions of the key raw
important mechanical functions: (1) transfer stresses between fibers materials used in this study were obtained by X-ray fluorescence
and matrix, and (2) transfer force from the FRIP composite to the (XRF) analysis (Table 1).
concrete substrate. Therefore, selection of an appropriate inorganic The dry carbon-fiber sheets (Fig. 1), which were used for pro-
paste to act as both the matrix and the bonding adhesive is key to ducing FRIP composites and strengthening in flexure of plain con-
the success of FRIP strengthening technology. This paper describes crete beams, had a nominal thickness of 0.11 mm and density of
an extensive comparison of the performances of the four cement- 200 g=m2 . The fiber had a tensile strength of 3,400 MPa and elastic
based inorganic pastes typically available for fiber-based strength- modulus of 240 GPa. Normal strength concrete was used for the
ening applications. pull-off tests for the inorganic matrix-to-concrete interface and
flexural tests of FRIP-strengthened concrete beams. The concrete’s
28-day cylinder strength, splitting test tensile strength, and elastic
Experimental Program modulus were 30.7 MPa, 3.2 MPa, and 25.6 GPa, respectively.

Overall
Mix Proportions
The test program consisted of three phases to enable a comprehen-
sive understanding of the following: (1) material properties of All the inorganic pastes compared had the same compressive
the different inorganic pastes, including workability, pot life, com- strength of 45 MPa. Dai et al. (2013) conducted a series of tests
pressive strength, and flexural strength; (2) mechanical properties to understand the relationship between compressive strength and
of FRIP composites, including the bonding properties with dry mix proportions for each type of inorganic paste to optimize mix
fiber sheets in different inorganic pastes and the tensile properties design and the mechanical properties of the FRIP composite. Based
of different FRIP composites; and (3) performance of FRIP bonded on that study, Table 2 summarizes the mix proportions used for the
systems, including bonding properties of different inorganic matri- research reported in this paper.
ces with the concrete substrate and flexural performance of FRIP-
strengthened concrete beams. Specimens and Test Methods
The flow/workability of the inorganic pastes was determined using
Materials
the minicone slump flow test. A small cone with an upper diameter
The raw materials used in the research reported in this paper
included dead burnt magnesia, monopotassium phosphate, boric
acid, and FA for the MPC-based paste; light burnt magnesia,
FA, and magnesium chloride (MgCl2 ) for the MOC-based paste;
OPC, MK, FA, slag, and latex for PMM; and slag, water glass,
and matakaoline for the geopolymer. The dead burnt magnesia
and light burnt magnesia were bought from Jinan city, Shandong
province, People’s Republic of China (P.R.C.). Monopotassium
phosphate is a chemical reagent in a white grain crystal form,
manufactured by the Guangzhou Reagent Factory, P.R.C. The mag-
nesium chloride used was a hygroscopic hexahydrate (MgCl2 ·
6H2 O) crystal with a purity of 98%, imported from Israel. Water
glass, which was used to activate the slag cement, came from
Tianjin city, PRC, and its modulus (i.e., SiO2 =Na2 O ratio) was
adjusted to 1.4 by adding NaOH solution. Type 1 portland cement
with a specific surface of 3,519.5 cm2 =g and a specific gravity of
3.15 was used to produce the PMM. Polymer-modified mortar also
Fig. 1. Unidirectional dry carbon fiber sheet (Munir et al. 2013, with
incorporated latex polymer (i.e., styrene butadiene rubber with 37%
permission from the Japan Concrete Institute)
solids) purchased from SIKA Hong Kong. Quartz sand passing

© ASCE A4013011-3 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2014, 18(3): A4013011

 Table 2. Mix Proportions of Four Different Inorganic Pastes
Mixing components
Paste type Dead burnt magnesia Monopotassium phosphate Borax FA Water-to-binder ratio
MPC 1 1 0.10 0.60 0.60
MOC Light burnt magnesia FA MgCl2 solution MgCl2 concentration
1 1 1.2 22° Baume
GP Slag MK Water glass, SiO2 =Na2 O ¼ 1.4 Water-to-binder ratio
1 0.50 0.20 0.60
PMM OPC MK and slag FA Latex, SBR Water-to-binder ratio
0.80 0.05 þ 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.30
Cement∶sanda = 1∶1 by weight
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati on 03/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: FA = fly ash; GP = geopolymer; MOC = magnesium oxychloride cement; MPC = magnesium phosphate cement; PMM = polymer-modified mortar; and
SBR = styrene butadiene.
a
The diameter of the sand particles was less than 0.6 mm.

of 36 mm, a lower diameter of 60 mm, and a height of 60 mm was
used. The diameter of the circle of cement paste, which then flowed
over the horizontal glass plate (Fig. 2), was measured. The pot life
of each inorganic paste was determined using Vicat needle tests in
accordance with ASTM C191-08 (ASTM 2008a). The compressive
strength of the different inorganic pastes was determined from tests
of 30 × 30 × 30-mm cube specimens. For each type of mix, three
identical specimens were prepared. The flexural strength of each
type of organic paste was determined using prism-shaped speci-
mens of dimensions 40 × 40 × 160 mm, in accordance with ASTM
C348-08 (ASTM 2008b).
Pullout tests were performed to evaluate the bond performance
of dry fiber sheets impregnated with different inorganic matrices.
The inorganic matrices were prepared in the form of a 70.7 ×
70.7 × 70.7-mm cubes with one layer of dry carbon-fiber sheet em-
bedded at the center (Fig. 3). To exert uniform stresses in the fiber
sheets during pullout, the portion of the dry fiber sheet outside the
inorganic matrix was impregnated with a two-part epoxy matrix,
for which the ratio of resin to hardener was 2∶1 by weight. The
bond strength depends on the length of the fiber sheet embedded
in the matrix. A fixed embedded length of 55 mm was adopted for
the research reported in this paper. A total of 12 specimens were
prepared for the four different types of inorganic pastes (three for
36 mm
each type). All test specimens were demolded 24 h after casting and
cured at a temperature of 25
2°C and relative humidity of
55
5%. The tests were conducted after 7 days of curing. After
the pullout tests, the bond strength of a fiber sheet was calculated
by dividing the maximum exerted pullout force by the surface area
of the fiber sheet embedded in the matrix.
The tensile strengths of the FRIP composites in accordance with
the different inorganic matrices were evaluated using flat coupons
(Fig. 4). A layer of dry fiber sheet was sandwiched in each coupon.
Three 3-mm thick dumbbell-shaped coupons were prepared for
each of the four types of inorganic paste. The two ends of the cou-
pons were impregnated with epoxy to avoid local failure at the
ends of the specimens before failure of the central part. Fig. 4
shows the dimensions of the coupons. All of the tensile tests were
also conducted after 7 days of curing using a universal testing
machine. A displacement rate of 1.0 mm= min was applied.
Pulloff tests were conducted to compare the tensile concrete
substrate bond strengths of the different inorganic matrices with
their epoxy counterpart (Fig. 5). The concrete substrate was
prepared using 100 × 100 × 100-mm cubes. The bonding area be-
tween the inorganic pastes and concrete substrate was 50 × 50 mm.
The concrete substrate surface was prepared using a needle gun to
expose the coarse aggregates. A 5-mm thick layer of inorganic
paste was then applied to the concrete substrate and cured for

60 mm

60 mm Fig. 3. Pullout of dry carbon fiber sheets in different inorganic pastes

(Munir et al. 2013, with permission from the Japan Concrete Institute)
D1
D2
FRP grip FRiP composites FRP grip

65 mm 80 mm 65 mm

Fig. 4. Flat tensile coupon of FRIP composites (adapted from Munir

Fig. 2. Measurement of flow et al. 2013)

© ASCE A4013011-4 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2014, 18(3): A4013011


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati on 03/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Pulloff tests of the inorganic paste-to-concrete interface
21 days. Later, a steel block was glued to the inorganic layer with
epoxy resin. Tests were performed 28 days after the application of
the inorganic pastes. In total, 15 specimens were tested.
The bond performance of FRIP composites and concrete
substrate was evaluated through flexural testing of the FRIP-
strengthened plain concrete beams subject to four-point loading
and with a 150-mm constant moment zone (Fig. 6). A total of
18 concrete beams were prepared. Three were unstrengthened
reference beams, three were strengthened with epoxy-based FRP
composites, and the remaining 12 were strengthened with four
different FRIP composites. The concrete beams had a test span
of 450 mm and a 150 × 150-mm cross section. They were cured
in water for 28 days after casting and each beam had a 30-mm
deep notch at its midspan to reduce the flexural capacity of the
unstrengthened beams (to magnify the strengthening effects).
The bonding surface of the concrete beams was also treated using
a needle gun to expose the coarse aggregate. A layer of inorganic
paste was then placed on the concrete surface, next by a layer of dry
carbon-fiber sheet with a width of 120 mm, and then by another
layer of inorganic paste for surface-finishing. The subsequently
formed FRIP composites were about 3-mm thick. The conventional
wet layup technique was adopted for the epoxy-based FRP
strengthening system. All strengthened concrete beams were left
in air for 28 days at 23
2°C and 75
5% relative humidity before
testing to allow for curing of the FRIP composites.
Results and Discussion
Properties of Inorganic Pastes: Flow
The workability of different inorganic pastes is mainly influenced
by water content. Higher flow is associated with higher water con-
tent (Wang and Scrivener 1995; Ding and Li 2005; Ohama 1995;
Dai et al. 2013). Fly ash also helps improve the flow of inorganic
150 150 150
150
FRiP Thickness 3 mm 120
400 150
450
500
All Dimensions in mm
Fig. 6. FRIP-strengthened plain concrete beams
© ASCE A4013011-5
J. Compos. Constr., 2014, 18(3): A4013011
160
140
120
100
Flow (mm)
80
60
40
20
0
MPC MOC PMM GP
Fig. 7. Flow comparison of different inorganic pastes
pastes because of its small and spherically-shaped grains (Ding and
Li 2005; Chau et al. 2009). Fig. 7 presents a comparison of the flow
rates of different inorganic pastes for the given mix proportions.
Magnesium oxychloride cement paste shows the greatest flow,
whereas geopolymer shows the least flow. The low flow in the case
of slag-based geopolymer may be due to the inclusion of a high
percentage of MK, which reduces the activation of aluminosilicate
(Bernal et al. 2011). The flow of MPC seems to also be appropriate
for a bonding adhesive applied to vertical members and the soffits
of beams and slabs. A small variation in water content for MPC
(e.g., 3% of the binder amount by weight) only marginally affects
paste strength but noticeably improves flow (Dai et al. 2013). The
flow of PMM lies between that of geopolymer and the MOC and
MPC pastes.
Properties of Inorganic Pastes: Pot Life
The pot life is a very important inorganic-paste parameter. The
paste should remain workable throughout the time of application
and should gain substantial strength at the end of the operation.
Different inorganic pastes have different pot lives and there are dif-
ferent factors affecting the pot life of different inorganic matrices
(Fig. 8). The MPC paste has the shortest pot life because of the
furious acid/base reaction between magnesia and phosphate solu-
tion (Hall et al. 2001). In the research reported in this paper, boric
acid has been used as an additive to prolong the pot life of the MPC
paste up to 22 min, which seems to be short (Fig. 8). Efforts are
1000
Pot life (minutes)
100
10
1
MPC MOC PMM GP
Fig. 8. Pot life comparison of different inorganic pastes
J. Compos. Constr.
 60
1.8
1.6
Compressive strength (MPa) 50

Pullout strength (MPa)

1.4
40 1.2
1.0
30
0.8

20 0.6
0.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati on 03/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10
0.2

0 0.0
MPC MOC PMM GP MPC MOC PMM GP

Fig. 9. Compressive strength of different inorganic pastes Fig. 11. Pullout strength of fiber sheet in different inorganic pastes

being made by the writers to maximize the pot life of MPC by ad-
justing the magnesia-to-phosphate ratio, fineness of the magnesia
powder (Ding and Li 2005), and addition of CaCl2 without com-
promising the strength properties.
The pot life of an MOC paste is very high (i.e., 3–7 h) depending
on the concentration and quantity of MgCl2 solution (Misra and
Mathur 2007). A higher concentration and content of MgCl2 lead
to a longer pot life and vice versa (Chau et al. 2009). A geopolymer
also has a relatively short pot life (i.e., 35–50 min). A higher con-
tent of water glass leads to a faster reaction rate, resulting in early
setting of the geopolymer. In the case of PMM, the pot life is nearly
the same as that of an OPC paste (i.e., 80– 180 min). Metakaoline
can be added to the mortar to accelerate setting and enhance
mechanical properties.
Properties of Inorganic Pastes: Compressive and
Flexural Strength
The compressive strength of all the inorganic pastes was similar
to its designated value. In accordance with the mix proportions
(Table 2), the 7-day compressive strengths for all the inorganic
pastes were 45
2 MPa (Fig. 9). However, their flexural strengths,
which give an indication of tensile strength, varied significantly
from 1.41–8.64 MPa (Fig. 10). The MOC paste has the greatest
flexural strength, followed by PMM, MPC paste, and geopolymer.
The greater flexural strength of MOC paste may be because it fea-
tures a combination of amorphous and crystalline microstructures.
Its needle-like microstructure also improves compaction properties
(Dai et al. 2013). The greater flexural strength of PMM is due to the
addition of polymer as well as the presence of high-density sand
particles. The flexural strength of MPC paste is less than that of
PMM due to its more brittle nature (Péra and Ambroise 1998).
The slag-based geopolymer showed the least flexural strength of
all the inorganic matrices.
Properties of FRIP Composites: Pullout Strength of
Dry Fiber Sheets
The pullout strength of fiber sheets in an inorganic matrix is a very
important and decisive parameter affecting the performance of the
formed FRIP composite. A greater pullout strength indicates good
bonding between the fibers and matrix in addition to effective
mobilization of the fiber strength in the composites. Fig. 11 pre-
sents the pullout strength of a dry carbon-fiber sheet set in different
inorganic pastes. The MPC matrix provides the largest pullout val-
ues and the geopolymer matrix the smallest. The MPC and MOC
pastes exhibit a similar performance whereas PMM is slightly
inferior, probably because of the granularity of the paste, which
adversely influences the impregnation of the dry fiber sheets by
the paste. Overall, the slag-based geopolymer matrix exhibits brittle

10
1800

1600
8
Flexural strength (MPa)

1400
Tensile strength (MPa)

1200
6
1000

4 800

600

2 400

200
0 0
MPC MOC PMM GP MPC MOC PMM GP

Fig. 10. Flexural strength of different inorganic pastes Fig. 12. Tensile strength of different FRIP composites

© ASCE A4013011-6 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2014, 18(3): A4013011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati on 03/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Failure modes observed in pulloff tests

Properties of FRIP Composites: SEM Analysis

Fig. 13. Scanning electron micrographs of different inorganic matrix-
based FRIP composites: (a) MPC; (b) MOC; (c) GP; (d) PMM
behavior to the greatest degree and the worst bonding-performance
with a dry fiber sheet.
Properties of FRIP Composites: Tensile Strength of
FRIP Composites
The tensile strength of FRIP composites may best indicate their
structural strengthening effect potential in many cases since the
fracture of the FRIP composites commonly signifies the onset
of failure in a FRIP strengthened structural system. Fig. 12 shows
the tensile strengths of FRIP composites with different inorganic
matrices. The tensile strength was obtained by dividing the ultimate
tensile load by the nominal cross-sectional area of the fiber sheet
(fiber sheet width × fiber sheet nominal thickness). The differen-
ces due to the type of inorganic matrix in the tensile strength of
FRIP composites correlate well with the differences observed in
the pullout tests described previously. This is not surprising
because the tensile strength of the FRIP composite is influenced
by the interaction between the fiber sheet and matrix material,
and subsequently the uniformity of stress in the fibers. The largest
FRIP composite tensile strengths were seen in the MOC and MPC
matrix cases. Slag-based geopolymer was the worst performer.
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analyses were conducted on
different inorganic matrix-based FRIP composites to study their
microstructures. Of particular interest were the impregnation prop-
erties, microstructure of the different inorganic cement-based
matrices, and interaction between the fibers and matrix. Scanning
electron microscopy analyses were performed at 28 days after
air curing at a temperature of 23
2°C and relative humidity
of 70
5%.
Fig. 13 represents SEM micrographs of the four different FRIP
composites, which show very different microstructures, penetration
characteristics, and fiber-matrix interactions. The MOC-based
paste achieves the best fiber impregnation among all composites
tested, followed by MPC paste and PMM, whereas the geopolymer
matrix penetrated the least. The greater impregnation of MOC and
MPC pastes might be the result of their greater flow ability. The
dense and acicular microstructure of MOC and MPC matrices also
help to increase the interlock and friction between the fiber fila-
ments and matrix materials [Figs. 13(a and b)]. These explain well
why relatively large fiber-sheet pullout strengths and the large ten-
sile strengths of FRIP composites were achieved in the cases of
MOC and MPC pastes. The SEM micrograph of a GP-based FRIP
composite showed the smallest degree of matrix impregnation into
the fibers as well as the weakest interaction between the fiber and
matrix [Fig. 13(c)]. The greater shrinkage property of the geopol-
ymer paste may be the reason for this result. The PMM micrograph
showed a relatively coarse matrix microstructure [Fig. 13(d)] due to
the inclusion of sand. However, there is good fiber and matrix
integrity [Fig. 13(d)].

Table 3. Pull-Off Test Results

Adhesive Sample Ultimate Pull-off Average pull-off
type number load (N) strength (MPa) strength (MPa) Failure mode
Epoxy 1 9,895 3.96 3.70 Concrete fracture
2 8,959 3.58 Concrete fracture
3 8,894 3.56 Concrete fracture
MPC 1 3,351 1.34 1.17 Partial concrete and matrix fracture
2 2,855 1.14 Fracture in matrix
3 2,596 1.04 Fracture in matrix
MOC 1 2,595 1.04 1.09 Fracture in matrix
2 2,591 1.04 Fracture in matrix
3 2,956 1.18 Fracture in matrix
GP 1 612 0.24 0.27 Debonding at concrete-matrix interface
2 729 0.29 Debonding at concrete-matrix interface
3 671 0.27 Debonding at concrete-matrix interface
PMM 1 8,987 3.60 3.29 Partial concrete and matrix fracture
2 8,526 3.41 Partial concrete and matrix fracture
3 8,158 2.87 Partial concrete and matrix fracture

© ASCE A4013011-7 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2014, 18(3): A4013011

 mode because the pastes were of a smaller tensile strength than the
material of the concrete substrate.

Performance of Bond between FRIP Composites and

Concrete Substrate: Flexural Performance of FRIP-
Strengthened Concrete Beams
Fig. 15 compares the load-deflection curves of FRP and FRIP-
strengthened concrete beams with those of the reference beams.
Since the scatter between the three identical beams for each test
parameter is small (Table 4), Fig. 15 displays the results for only
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati on 03/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

one representative specimen for each parameter tested. For the

Fig. 15. Flexural test results of reference and strengthened concrete
beams
Performance of Bond between FRIP Composites and
Concrete Substrate: Pull-Off Test Results
The tensile bond strength between the concrete substrate and dif-
ferent inorganic matrices was determined through pull-off tests
(Table 3). Different inorganic pastes lead to different failure modes
and failure strengths. The epoxy adhesive bonds the best with con-
crete, with failure occurring in the concrete itself as was expected
(Fig. 14). Among the inorganic adhesives, PMM bonds the most
successfully with the concrete substrate with failure occurring
partly in both the concrete and matrix (Fig. 14). Magnesium phos-
phate cement and MOC come next, with fracture occurring within
the inorganic pastes. Geopolymer exhibits the smallest bonding
strength, with failure occurring at the adhesive-concrete interface
(Fig. 14). Polymer-modified mortar might be the best performer
because of factors such as the addition of polymer (latex) as the
adhesion promoter (Ohama 1995), compatibility with the concrete
substrate because of its similar cement-based reaction product, and
inclusion of sand. The latter increases the toughness of the PMM
paste and prevents fracture within the matrix. The MPC and MOC
pastes also showed good bonding with the concrete substrate but
failure eventually occurred as matrix fracture. This was the failure
MPC, MOC, and PMM-based FRIP strengthening cases, the load-
carrying capacity is about 2× that of the reference beam. However,
for the geopolymer-based FRIP strengthening system, the load-
carrying capacity is only 27% greater. All the FRIP strengthening
systems are significantly less efficient than the epoxy-based FRP
strengthening system, in which the load-carrying capacity is 3×
that of the reference beam. Further efforts are needed to optimize
the performance of inorganic pastes in improving the mobilization
of the full capacity of the strengthening fibers. The FRP-
strengthened concrete beams exhibit the best deformability perfor-
mance, whereas geopolymer-based FRIP strengthening systems
have poor levels of deformability. FRIP-strengthened concrete
beams failed by fiber pullout in the cases of MPC paste, MOC
paste, and PMM, but by fiber breakage in the geopolymer case.
Conclusions
A comprehensive test program has been conducted to evaluate
the performance of four typically made inorganic pastes based on
MPC, MOC, GP, and PMM. The evaluated performance include
the material properties of the pastes, mechanical properties of FRIP
composites based on the pastes, bond performance of fiber sheets
cast in the four pastes, and tensile and shear bond strength of the
four FRIP composites with concrete substrates. Given the similar
compressive strength of the four inorganic pastes within the context
of the adopted mix proportions, the following conclusions can be
drawn from the test results:

Table 4. Results of Flexural Test on Concrete Strengthened with Different Composites

Specimen Failure Maximum Maximum Average maximum Average maximum Strengthening
Beam type code mode load (kN) deflection (mm) deflection (mm) load (kN) effecta (%)
Reference R-1 Flexural 17.1 0.107 0.099 16.8 0
R-2 Flexural 16.5 0.098
R-3 Flexural 15.6 0.091
GP GP-1 Flexural 21.7 0.164 0.155 21.2 27
GP-2 Flexural 19.9 0.132
GP-3 Flexural 22.1 0.169
PMM PMM-1 Flexural 36.0 0.395 0.404 33.5 100
PMM-2 Flexural 34.0 0.466
PMM-3 Flexural 30.6 0.351
MOC MOC-1 Flexural 35.6 0.615 0.570 34.3 105
MOC-2 Flexural 35.2 0.526
MOC-3 Flexural 32.2 0.568
MPC MPC-1 Flexural 37.1 0.549 0.508 34.6 106
MPC-2 Flexural 33.7 0.495
MPC-3 Flexural 32.9 0.481
Epoxy FRP-1 Shear 55.2 0.979 1.018 53.3 218
FRP-2 Shear 53.0 0.989
FRP-3 Shear 51.9 1.087
a
Load increase as compared to the reference beam.

© ASCE A4013011-8 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2014, 18(3): A4013011

 • The MPC and MOC pastes have the greatest flow characteris-
tics. The MOC paste has the longest pot life. Geopolymer flows
the least freely and MPC paste has the shortest pot life.
• The order of flexural strength is MOC > PMM > MPC > GP.
• Both the pullout strength of dry carbon fiber sheets and the ten-
sile strength of the FRIP composites in which they were em-
bedded are in the same order of MPC > MOC > PMM > GP.
• Scanning electron microscopy analyses show that the MPC,
MOC, and PMM pastes all have relatively dense microstructures
and impregnate the dry fiber sheets well, leading to good fiber-
matrix interactions. Geopolymer shows poorer impregnation of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati on 03/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
fiber sheets and fiber-matrix interaction.
• All the FRIP strengthening systems show lower efficiencies than
their FRP counterpart. Polymer-modified matrix paste has a
better tensile bond performance with concrete substrates than
MPC and MOC pastes. However, MPC and MOC pastes, when
used as the matrix to fiber sheets and as the bonding adhesive for
FRIP composites, achieve better flexural-strengthening effi-
ciency. Use of GP paste leads to the poorest performance among
the four materials, both in terms of tensile bond strength with the
concrete substrate and flexural-strengthening efficiency.
• Overall, among the four inorganic pastes studies, MOC and
MPC pastes in addition to PMM achieve similar mechanical
performance, whereas in PMM a certain amount of organic
polymer is still used. Geopolymer performs the most poorly
mainly due to its brittleness. For the development of an optimal
FRIP strengthening system, work should be directed to further
improving the workability of MPC paste, the moisture stability
of MOC paste, and fiber-strength efficiency by optimizing the
interfacial bond between the fiber sheets and inorganic matrices.
Acknowledgments
The writers are grateful for the financial support received from the
Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR (project number
PolyU 514311), National Natural Science Foundation of China
(project code 51172146), as well as the research fund supported
by Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Durability for Marine
Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University, through project GDDCE
12-03. The second writer also acknowledges the Ph.D. studentship
awarded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
References
Aldea, C. M., Mobasher, B., and Jain, N. (2005). “Cement-based matrix-
grid system for masonry rehabilitation.” Proc., Thin Fiber And Textile
Reinforced Cementitious Systems (CD-ROM), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1579–1589.
ASTM. (2008a). “Standard test methods for time of setting of hydraulic
cement by Vicat needle.” C191-08, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008b). “Standard test method for flexural strength of hydraulic-
cement mortars.” C348-08, West Conshohocken, PA.
Au, C., and Büyüköztürk, O. (2006). “Peeling and shear fracture charac-
terization of debonding in FRP plated concrete affected by moisture.”
J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2006)10:1(35), 35–47.
Badanoiu, A., and Holmgren, J. (2001). “Cementitious composites rein-
forced with continuous carbon fibers for strengthening of concrete
structures.” Cement Concr. Compos., 25(3), 387–394.
Banholzer, B., Brockmann, T., and Brameshuber, W. (2006). “Material and
bonding characteristics for dimensioning and modelling of textile rein-
forced concrete (TRC) elements.” Mater. Struct., 39(8), 749–763.
Bernal, S. A., Provis, J. L., Rose, V., and de Gutierrez, R. M. (2011). “Evo-
lution of binder structure in sodium silicate-activated slag-metakaolin
blends.” Cement Concr. Compos., 33(1), 46–54.
© ASCE A4013011-9
J. Compos. Constr., 2014, 18(3): A4013011
Bisby, L., Stratford, T., Smith, J., and Halpin, S. (2011). “FRP versus fiber
reinforced cementitious mortar strengthening systems at elevated tem-
perature.” Proc., Int. Symp. on FRP Reinforcement for RC Structures,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1–20.
Brückner, A., Ortlepp, R., and Curbach, M. (2006). “Textile reinforced con-
crete for strengthening in bending and shear.” Mater. Struct., 39(8),
741–748.
Chau, C. K., Chan, J., and Li, Z. J. (2009). “Influences of fly ash on mag-
nesium oxychloride mortar.” Cement Concr. Compos., 31(4), 250–254.
Chau, C. K., and Li, Z. J. (2008). “Microstructures of magnesium
oxychloride.” Mater. Struct., 41(5), 853–862.
Dai, J. G., Munir, S., and Ding, Z. (2013). “Mix design of inorganic pastes
as matrices and bonding adhesives of fiber sheets for strengthening of
existing concrete structures.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Concrete Sustainabil-
ity (CD-ROM), Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo, Paper No. S3-4-2, 8.
Dai, J. G., Wang, B., and Xu, S. L. (2009). “Textile reinforced engineered
cementitious composites (TR-ECC) overlays for the strengthening of
RC beams.” Proc., Asia-Pacific Conf. on FRP in Structures, J. Sim,
ed., Asian Concrete Federation, Patumthani, Thailand, 75–81.
Dai, J. G., Yokota, H., Iwanami, M., and Kato, E. (2010). “Experimental
investigation of the influence of moisture on the bond behavior of fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) to concrete interfaces.” J. Compos. Constr.,
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000142, 834–844.
D’Ambrisi, A., and Focacci, F. (2011). “Flexural strengthening of RC
beams with cement-based composites.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/
(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000218, 707–720.
De Caso y Basalo, F. J., Matta, F., and Nanni, A. (2012). “Fiber reinforced
cement-based composite system for concrete confinement.” Constr.
Build. Mater., 32(1), 55–65.
Deng, D. H. (2003). “The mechanism for soluble phosphates to improve the
water resistance of magnesium oxychloride cement.” Cement Concr.
Res., 33(9), 1311–1317.
Ding, Z., and Li, Z. J. (2005). “High-early-strength magnesium phosphate
cement with fly ash.” ACI Mater. J., 102(6), 375–381.
Ding, Z., Lu, Z. X., and Li, Y. (2011). “Feasibility of basalt fiber reinforced
inorganic adhesive for concrete strengthening.” Adv. Mater. Res.,
287–290(1), 1197–1200.
Duxson, P., Fernandez-Jemenez, A., Provis, J. L., Lukey, G. C.,
Palomo, A., and Van, J. S. J. (2007). “Geopolymer technology: The
current state of the art.” J. Mater. Sci., 42(9), 2917–2933.
Hall, D. A., Stevens, R., and El-Jazairi, B. (2001). “The effect of retarders
on the microstructure and mechanical properties of magnesia-phosphate
cement mortar.” Cement Concr. Res., 31(3), 455–465.
Hashemi, S., and Al-Mahaidi, R. (2010). “Investigation of bond strength
and flexural behavior of FRP strengthened RC beams using cement
based adhesives.” Proc., ASCE Structural Congress, S. Senapathi,
K. Casey, and M. Hoit, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, 689–700.
Hashemi, S., and Al-Mahaidi, R. (2012). “Experimental and finite element
analysis of flexural behavior of FRP-strengthened RC beams using
cement-based adhesives.” Constr. Build. Mater., 26(1), 268–273.
Jesse, F., Ortlepp, R., and Curbach, M. (2006). “Flexural strengthening
of RC structures with textile reinforced concrete.” Proc., Textile-
Reinforced Concrete (CD-ROM), American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 49–58.
Kolsch, H. (1998). “Carbon fiber cement matrix (CFCM) overlay system
for masonry strengthening.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0268(1998)2:2(105), 105–109.
Kurtz, S., and Balaguru, P. (2001). “Comparison of inorganic and organic
matrix with strengthening of RC beam with carbon sheet.” J. Struct.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:1(35), 35–42.
Li, Z. J., Ding, Z., and Zhang, Y. S. (2004). “Development of sustainable
cementitious materials.” Proc., Int. Workshop on Sustainable Develop-
ment and Concrete Technology, Center for Transportation Research and
Education, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 55–76.
Misra, A. K., and Mathur, R. (2007). “Magnesium oxychloride cement
concrete.” Bull. Mater. Sci., 30(3), 239–246.
Moon, F. L., Yi, T. Y., Leon, R. T., and Kahn, L. F. (2007). “Testing of a
full-scale unreinforced masonry building following seismic strengthen-
ing.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:9(1215),
1215–1226.
J. Compos. Constr.
 Munir, S., Dai, J. G., and Ding, Z. (2013). “A comparative study of different
inorganic pastes for the development of fiber reinforced inorganic
polymer (FRIP) strengthening technology.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Sustain-
able Construction Materials and Technologies (CD-ROM), Coventry
Univ., Coventry, U.K., 1–9.
Nanni, A. (2012). “A new tool for concrete and masonry repair.” Concr.
Int., 34(4), 43–49.
Ohama, Y. (1995). “Properties of latex-modified systems.” Handbook of
polymer-modified concrete and mortars, William Andrew Publishing,
Park Ridge, NJ, 132–157.
Palacios, M., and Puertas, F. (2006). “Effect of carbonation on alkali-
activated slag paste.” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 89(10), 3211–3221.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati on 03/06/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Papakonstantinou, C., and Balaguru, P. (2006). “Bond characteristics and
structural behavior of inorganic polymer FRP.” Measuring, monitoring
and modeling concrete properties, Springer, Rotterdam, Netherlands,
735–741.
Pascal, S., Alliche, A., and Pilvin, P. (2004). “Mechanical behaviour of
polymer modified mortars.” Mater. Sci. Eng., 380(1–2), 1–8.
Péra, J., and Ambroise, J. (1998). “Fiber-reinforced magnesia-phosphate
cement composites for rapid repair.” Cement Concr. Compos., 20(1),
31–39.
Taljsten, B., and Blanksvard, T. (2007). “Mineral-based bonding of carbon
FRP to strengthen concrete structures.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:2(120), 120–128.
Tian, J., Yang, J., and Bu, J. (2012). “Study on bond behavior of magne-
sium and potassium phosphate cement matrix with glass fiber bundle.”
Proc., ASCE Conf. on Engineering, Science, Construction, and Oper-
ations in Challenging Environments, K. Zacny, R. B. Malla, and
W. Binienda, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, 753–762.
Toutanji, H., and Deng, Y. (2007). “Comparison between organic and
inorganic matrices for RC beams strengthened with carbon fiber
sheets.” J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:5
(507), 507–513.
© ASCE A4013011-10
J. Compos. Constr., 2014, 18(3): A4013011
Toutanji, H., Zhao, L., and Zhang, Y. (2006). “Flexural behavior of rein-
forced concrete beams externally strengthened with CFRP sheets
bonded with an inorganic matrix.” Eng. Struct., 28(4), 557–566.
Triantafillou, T. C., and Papanicolaou, C. G. (2006). “Shear strengthening
of reinforced concrete members with textile reinforced mortar (TRM)
jackets.” Mater. Struct., 39(1), 93–103.
Wagh, A. S., and Jeong, S. Y. (2003). “Chemically bonded phosphate
ceramics: I, a dissolution model of formation.” J. Am. Ceram. Soc.,
86(11), 1838–1844.
Wan, B., Petrou, M. F., and Harries, K. A. (2006). “The effects of the pres-
ence of water on the durability of bond between CFRP and concrete.”
J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., 25(8), 875–890.
Wang, S. D., and Scrivener, K. L. (1995). “Hydration products of alkali-
activated slag cement.” Cement Concr. Res., 25(3), 561–571.
Wang, S. P., Weng, R., Zhu, Y. D., Li, X. M., and Xi, Y. (2006). “Effects
of EVA latex on the properties of glass-fiber magnesium-oxychloride
cement composites.” J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. Mater. Sci. Ed., 21(1),
138–142.
Wiberg, A. (2003). “Strengthening of concrete beams using cementitious
carbon fiber composites.” Ph.D. thesis, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Wu, H. C., Sun, P. J., and Teng, J. M. (2010). “Development of fiber-
reinforced cement-based composite sheets for structural retrofit.” J.
Mater. Sci. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000056, 572–579.
Yip, C. K., Lukey, G. C., and van Deventer, J. S. J. (2005). “The coexist-
ence of geopolymeric gel and calcium silicate hydrates at the early stage
of alkaline activation.” Cement Concr. Res., 35(9), 1688–1697.
Zhang, D. W., Ueda, T., and Furuuchi, H. (2011). “Intermediate crack de-
bonding of polymer cement mortar overlay-strengthened RC beam.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000240, 857–865.
Zhang, X., and Zhang, G. Q. (2011). “An experimental study of the high
temperature behavior of concrete slabs strengthened with carbon fiber
reinforced polymer (CFRP) with inorganic adhesive.” Appl. Mech.
Mater., 90–93(1), 3122–3130.
J. Compos. Constr.